Are married priests an exception?
If you are a member of the Latin Church, the answer, of course, is “yes”. In the West we have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, and those priests who are married – such as Anglican converts – are the exception, not the rule. Celibacy in the priesthood is a cherished tradition in the West, and there has never been a strong movement here to push for married priests.
Thus, Father Laurent Touze, a spiritual theology professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, was quite correct to speak of married priests as an “exception” in an interview with Zenit News Agency. However, the good Father went off the tracks a bit when he tried to apply this practice to the Christian East:
ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?
Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.
This statement of Fr. Touze’s shows either an ignorance or a disrespect for the legitimate traditions of the East. As we in the West have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, so too does the East have a strong tradition of married priests (note, however, that their bishops and monks are always celibate). To wish to “promote” a celibate clergy in the East goes against their praxis which has existed for centuries.
Furthermore, it goes against the teachings of Vatican II, which commanded that the traditions of the East be respected by those of us in the West:
“…the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls,” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 5)
Vatican II also explicitly commends the practice of married priests in the East:
“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)
Finally, the code of canon law for the Eastern Churches, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, demands that the practice of married priests in the East be “held in honor”:
“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)
It is unfortunate that Fr. Touze chose to ignore these teachings of our Church in his public comments. We in the West should zealously honor our celibate clergy, and should always work to explain and defend the practice of celibacy in the priesthood. But that defense should not come at the expense of our brothers and sisters in the East, who have their own, just-as-legitimate, tradition of married priests.
You misunderstand Father Touze’s argument. He is not arguing that the Eastern Churches should give up one tradition simply to take up another. He is, instead, arguing that the Eastern Churches should give up their tradition of married priests because the Church is coming to understand priestly celibacy as “something likened to…a dogma,” and not just a tradition. That is, the Church, according to Father Touze, is reaching the conclusion that celibacy is an essential part of holy orders. One should not, in this case, be ordained a priest, unless one is unmarried and takes a vow of celibacy, regardless of one’s Rite or Church.
Father Touze seems to be drawing this conclusion from his view that the Church has decided that celibacy is essential to the episcopate. He appears to believe that the Church will discover that the “relation[ship] between priesthood, episcopacy, and celibacy” is so close that what ostensibly makes celibacy necessary for a bishop will also be found to make it essential for a priest.
Peregrinus,
You bring up a good point and I think you understand Fr. Touze correctly.
I too understood him in that way, but I think he is fundamentally wrong. Celibacy is NOT intrinsically linked to the priesthood, and should NOT be likened to dogma. Dogmas do not have “exceptions” and I think the fact that even in the West we allow exceptions to the discipline of priestly celibacy shows that fundamentally we don’t see it as a dogma (or even “likened” to one). And in the East, marriage and priesthood have never been seen as two completely separate charisms, even though they have embraced a celibate episcopacy. So why should the West’s traditions be considered superior to the East’s?
More importantly, the Church has officially endorsed the Eastern practice of married priests (in that tradition), and I think it is unfortunate that Fr. Touze would go beyond the Church’s stand to try to make a discipline into a dogma. Although I do believe that his heart is in the right place, this type of defense of priestly celibacy hurts more than it helps.
(Please note: I am VERY supportive of the Latin church’s practice of priestly celibacy and I don’t think it should ever change. But it is integral to our traditions, and it is not integral to the East’s).
A question. Why are Eastern bishops chosen from the ranks of monastic celibates and can this non-dogmatic tradition be laid aside for married bishops? If it’s merely a discipline, then there should be exceptions for this rule.
What is it about celibacy that makes in important enough that bishops must be a celibate? From this answer, let’s see what be deduced and whether it may be applied to priests as well.
Father Touze is clearly wrong; and his argument shows either an astounding lack of ignorance of how Church teaching develops or ultimately a rejection of the Church’s claims concerning the nature of the Deposit of Faith and the Church’s ability to preserve it. I assume that Father Touze was speaking off the cuff, so to speak, in the interview and did not reflect upon the ultimate implications of his position.
A celibate priest is a more perfect sign of the person of Christ (persona Christi), whom a priest is when exercising his office, than a married priest. The Church recognizes that a bishop, the successor of an Apostle, should be this more perfect sign. The Church, therefore, both East and West selects only unmarried priests to be bishops. This is a good and useful tradition or discipline; it is not a practice made necessary by the nature of the episcopal office itself, as the condition of some of the Apostles confirms. There is no reason, therefore, to conclude that this tradition concerning bishops must be extended to priests.
Erratum: read “astounding ignorance” for “astounding lack of ignorance” in my preceding comment.
I apologize for the careless proof reading.
Bishops were often married in the early part of the Church, but that changed for a host of reasons, mostly practical. It became apparent that it was best if a bishop was not married at the time of his ordination, and would remain so forever thereafter. One reason was that children and spouses of bishops were fighting with the church over property upon the bishop’s demise, a thoroughly rationale reason to require bishops to be without issue from an inheritance perspective. And an easy way to guarantee that across a widespread organization is to require celibacy. I guess it’s understandable if over time a certain amount of “puffing” accrues to the status of celibacy, if only as a recruitment and retention vehicle; but to inflate the “puffing” to the level of dogma and doctrine shows a profound ignorance or malicious desire. It’s just not in the deposit of faith. It makes a construct of man equivalent to revelation from God. Were those bishops who were married and close to their wives less somehow than later, celibate bishops? That would be a tall order, unless one had an agenda regarding the relative importance of celibacy.
Note too the reliance by this priest on that intellectual pandora’s box, “doctrinal development”. If he is representative of Catholic thinking, whatever might be positive in DD will be overwhelmed by the free for all it seems to allow its adherents.
Fr Touze also makes an empirical claim, that there is evidence that the earliest practice was that married men lived continently after ordination to the Priesthood or Episcopacy. That remains to be proven, but is not exactly the same as claiming a growing understanding of an intrinsic link.
Today in the Orthodox Church we celebrate the feastday of Pope St. Gregory the Great, among others. He led the Church of Rome into the seventh century, and his grandfather was Pope Felix. Now I ask you, would we not all be the poorer if Pope Felix did not find a good gal, and his son find one? and all this two hundred years AFTER Constantine the Great.
I think you have to be careful here, Eric, because if you read the entire interview with Fr. Touze, it is clear that he has studied this issue quite extensively – more than probably any of us posting here. I do not think the term “ignorance” can be used in reference to his position. You cite some excerpts from Vatican II, and I can assure you that Fr. Touze is quite familiar with these texts. In fact, this is apparent in his interview.
As on many other issues, Vatican II is worded very carefully. None of the above quotes that you have reprinted contradict Fr. Touze’s argument.
The position taken by Fr. Touze is certainly a valid one. Two post-conciliar books make just this case, doing so primarily by tracing the roots of priestly celibacy. One is “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” by Fr. Christian Cochini, SJ, and the other, interestingly enough, is by an Eastern Catholic priest, Fr. Roman Cholij, entitled “Clerical Celibacy in East and West”.
Priestly celibacy was a hotly debated topic for centuries between East and West, and for good reason. The topic is not simply one of practical differences but is theological. The above books speak of this. However, since the Orthodox Churches began reuniting with the West (making them “Eastern Catholic Churches”), the Vatican has been trying to keep the issue from being so divisive. Its strategy has been to say that there are different traditions, both are legitimate, and each must respect that of the other. This can be seen in Vatican II – which besides this motivation also had the added influence of a great spirit of ecumenism.
However, by doing so and simply leaving the issue at that, the Vatican is, for lack of a better term, putting up a smokescreen. That is why the debate continues – there are real issues there. This leads to contradictions. When Paul VI came out with his encyclical in defense of priestly celibacy (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus) against those who wanted to change it, he cited many reasons as to why a celibate priesthood was ideal – reasons, I might add, that the East has long taught about the celibate priests it gives a pride of place to. So if there are such good reasons for priestly celibacy, so much so that it is considered essential for the Latin Church to maintain a rule requiring all priests to embrace celibacy, why should this not all apply to the East as well? The only reason is because “it is not their tradition”. That was not enough to stop us from reconsidering our discipline, and if that is so, why should they not be open to changing theirs?
The response is usually something to this effect: because both of us should retain our respective practices, since each of us has become accustomed to them, and by changing the discipline, it would affect and force us to change so many other things that we have structured around it that it just makes more sense and is most fitting to keep it the way it is.
I have no problem with that, except that this is not the argument the Vatican is making for why it wants to continue to mandate clerical celibacy in the West. If it wants to argue that these are just historical differences, it should not lay out such a strong case for celibacy. And yet, laying out such a strong case for celibacy is the reason why some are arguing that this should apply to all priests – because it is not just a case of historical development, they say. In fact, Paul VI chose his words very carefully when he spoke about the different tradition in the East after he laid out such a great series of arguments for celibacy. He basically said himself that their different tradition is due to certain “historical” reasons (which many have actually considered an unfortunate mistake or accident). Personally, my guess is that the Holy Father would be pleased if the East were to move towards a celibate priesthood – he just cannot come out and say that. I know I would be (with all due respect to my Eastern brothers), as would Frs. Cochini and Cholij.
The reason that the Christian East has a celibate episcopate is that she saw a value in the holiness developed in the monastic ranks from which all Eastern bishops were drawn. It was not a mere matter of a man being celibate once the charism of monastic witness became valued in the East. The bishop is no only a successor to the Apostles, but also one of those who provide radical witness to Christ and to living out a Faith at odds with the world in which the Church finds herself.
I’d have to ask Father Touze if he thinks that once the East changes over to an all-celibate clergy if the West ought to change over to a monastic-only episcopate.
Robert: Many Eastern priests are drawn from the secular clergy. Some who are now bishops took a promise of celibacy when they were ordained priests, while others were secular priests whose wives had died.
I meant “Many Eastern [i]bishops[/i]…”
The push for celibacy in the West was coincident with the evolution of the Papacy into a proactive, centralizing force culminating in Hildebrand. It was also coincident with the change of the Papacy’s stance vis a vis the use of the filioque, i.e. for years Popes rejected the Frankish pressure to insert the Filioque, but eventually the same Popes who changed the ways of their predecessors and adopted it were also part of the thrust towards centralization and clerical celibacy.
All they innovations were related; what better way to assert centralizing control than to promote a charism that made clerics less rooted in their communities. Take it a step further and allow people to think that the priestly state was “higher” or “better” than other states for recruiting and retention; invent novelties such as “the indelible mark” to underscore the specialness of the clerical state, all of which supports the hyper-monarchial new papacy at the pinnacle of the pyramid.
If Benedict pushes the celibacy angle down the path Fr. Touze advocates, it will once again underscore to the Orthodox that the Papacy remains an unchecked engine of innovation and a risky force towards of extremes, lacking in moderation and humility, full of pride and hubris, the very heart of liberalism. So called Catholic traditionalists moan and groan about the Novus Ordo, for example, but would put no checks on the power of the Papacy that imposed the Novus Ordo; doubtless they know this power, and want it back for themselves, never considering that perhaps the power itself is the root of all the restlessness in the West.
Wade:
There are, indeed, Eastern bishops taken from the secular clergy whose wives have died. But in their selection, the Synod of Bishops has usually seen in them the same charism that has animated those chose from the ranks of monastics. And they must take monastic vows prior to episcopal ordination. Priests who are ordained as celibates are usually those who have already taken monastic vows and then spent some time in an active monastery.
I think we have to take Stephen’s post into account. I’ve known many Orthodox Christians, including many clergy. Their position is that Catholics need to return to the primitive practice that they embody, with both married and celibate clergy functioning.
Robert, thank you for the explanation.
You say the Orthodox hold that the Catholics should return to the “primitive practice”, which they say is the functioning of both married and celibate clergy. However, the question must be asked: “was this the primitive practice?” According to Cochini and Cholij, there were indeed married and celibate priests, but when married men were ordained – notice I say “when”, because at times and in certain places they were not – they were usually required to practice perpetual continence. “Married and Celibate” is a fallacious construction, because many of the “married” men were continent – which supports the Catholic practice of celibacy vs. the Orthodox practice of sexually-active married priests. Instead, we should frame the issue as being one of “non-continent and continent” priests, because that is really the main source of contention between the two Churches.
And if we want to return to the most primitive practice (the Orthodox take a pride in being the most “apostolic” – even though the Catholic or Anglican practice is sometimes more in line with the practices of the Apostles themselves), we will have to ordain married men as bishops (1Timothy 3). The Anglicans can make a strong case to the Orthodox that in this case, they are the most “orthodox”, ie. “apostolic”, on this issue.
The Orthodox cannot have it both ways – they cannot say that their way is the most correct because it was the closest to the apostolic practice, but on the other hand, dismiss those who show that their practice is more apostolic than the Orthodox (ie. the Anglicans and married bishops). It is as though the Orthodox are saying, “our practices are the most apostolic, but any practices which are not apostolic were supposed to change just the way we have changed them”. So then it is not a case of being apostolic – that is irrelevant. It is rather a case of doing things the way the Orthodox does them, regardless of their apostolicity, because the Orthodox way is the “correct” way.
Fr. Touze was putting forth the idea that celibacy is not a mere discipline enforced by the Church for practical reasons, but that in fact celibacy is related to Holy Orders in such a way that it should be considered “the norm” for all priests. Understood precisely in this light, all married priests, even within the Eastern churches, should be considered as “exceptions.”
It would indeed follow from this that celibacy should be promoted among Eastern catholics, nor is this contrary to the teaching of Vatican II, as the article seemed to imply. It is very clear that both the West and the East hold priestly celibacy in a position of honor, and in this light, celibacy is to be encouraged.
Furthermore, what Fr. Touze suggests has in fact also been implied often in the magisterial teaching on the priesthood within the past century. One example of this is Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, where Pius XI writes:
“But the Christian priesthood, being much superior to that of the Old Law, demanded a still greater purity. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, whose first written traces pre-suppose a still earlier unwritten practice, dates back to a canon of the Council of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, when persecution still raged. This law only makes obligatory what might in any case almost be termed a moral exigency that springs from the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching.”
And again further on:
“47. Notwithstanding all this, We do not wish that what We said in commendation of clerical celibacy should be interpreted as though it were Our mind in any way to blame, or, as it were, disapprove the different discipline legitimately prevailing in the Oriental Church. What We have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something We consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood; something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls.”
Pius XI calls the requirement of priestly celibacy nearly “a moral exigency” that springs from the Gospels. It is quite true that he goes on to say that he does not mean to blame the differing practice in the Eastern Churches, but he nevertheless clearly roots the practice of celibacy as something which springs from the very nature of the priesthood. Hence he says celibacy “corresponds better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls.”
If one were to take exception with anything Fr. Touze said, perhaps it would be the language of “exception” even in regard to the Eastern churches. De Facto, obviously married priests are not an exception. Hence there could be confusion there. Nevertheless, as far as the desires of the Church are concerned, it can legitimately be called an exception.
God bless,
Louis